Background and Objectives: Outcomes of deferring percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) without invasive physiologic assessment for intermediate coronary lesions is uncertain.We sought to compare long-term outcomes between medical treatment and PCI of intermediate lesions without invasive physiologic assessment. Methods: A total of 899 patients with intermediate coronary lesions between 50% and 70% diameter-stenosis were randomized to the conservative group (n=449) or the aggressive group (n=450). For intermediate lesions, PCI was performed in the aggressive group, but was deferred in the conservative group. The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac events (MACE, a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction [MI], or ischemia-driven any revascularization) at 3 years. Results: The number of treated lesions per patient was 0.8±0.9 in the conservative group and 1.7±0.9 in the aggressive group (p=0.001). At 3 years, the conservative group had a significantly higher incidence of MACE than the aggressive group (13.8% vs. 9.3%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.49; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.00–2.21; p=0.049), mainly driven by revascularization of target intermediate lesion (6.5% vs. 1.1%; HR, 5.69; 95% CI, 2.20–14.73;p<0.001). Between 1 and 3 years after the index procedure, compared to the aggressive group, the conservative group had significantly higher incidence of cardiac death or MI (3.2% vs.0.7%; HR, 4.34; 95% CI, 1.24–15.22; p=0.022) and ischemia-driven any revascularization. Conclusions For intermediate lesions, medical therapy alone, guided only by angiography, was associated with a higher risk of MACE at 3 years compared with performing PCI, mainly due to increased revascularization.

Background and Objectives: Outcomes of deferring percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) without invasive physiologic assessment for intermediate coronary lesions is uncertain.We sought to compare long-term outcomes between medical treatment and PCI of intermediate lesions without invasive physiologic assessment. Methods: A total of 899 patients with intermediate coronary lesions between 50% and 70% diameter-stenosis were randomized to the conservative group (n=449) or the aggressive group (n=450). For intermediate lesions, PCI was performed in the aggressive group, but was deferred in the conservative group. The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac events (MACE, a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction [MI], or ischemia-driven any revascularization) at 3 years. Results: The number of treated lesions per patient was 0.8±0.9 in the conservative group and 1.7±0.9 in the aggressive group (p=0.001). At 3 years, the conservative group had a significantly higher incidence of MACE than the aggressive group (13.8% vs. 9.3%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.49; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.00–2.21; p=0.049), mainly driven by revascularization of target intermediate lesion (6.5% vs. 1.1%; HR, 5.69; 95% CI, 2.20–14.73;p<0.001). Between 1 and 3 years after the index procedure, compared to the aggressive group, the conservative group had significantly higher incidence of cardiac death or MI (3.2% vs.0.7%; HR, 4.34; 95% CI, 1.24–15.22; p=0.022) and ischemia-driven any revascularization. Conclusions For intermediate lesions, medical therapy alone, guided only by angiography, was associated with a higher risk of MACE at 3 years compared with performing PCI, mainly due to increased revascularization.

Background: The significance of risk modification in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) is well recognized; however, the optimal timing for adminstering PCSK9 inhibitors remains unclear. Additionally, the lipid-lowering efficacy of evolocumab and alirocumab has not been fully established. This study evaluated the lipid-lowering effects of these two PCSK9 inhibitors. Methods: Patients diagnosed with ACS, including unstable angina, ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, and non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, who were treated with a PCSK9 inhibitor (evolocumab or alirocumab) during hospitalization for ACS between 2021 and 2023 were retrospectively analyzed. Baseline low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels were assessed, and changes in LDL-C levels during the acute and subacute phases after PCSK9 inhibitor administration were compared between the evolocumab and alirocumab groups. Results: Among 80 patients diagnosed with ACS, 36 received evolocumab, while 44 were treated with alirocumab. The mean baseline LDL-C level was 123 mg/dL in the evolocumab group and 128 mg/dL in the alirocumab group (p=0.456). In the subacute phase, the mean follow-up LDL-C levels were 47.05 mg/dL in the evolocumab group and 49.5 mg/dL in the alirocumab group (p=0.585). The mean percentage reduction in LDL-C levels during the subacute phase was 60.41% in the evolocumab group and 58.51% in the alirocumab group (p=0.431). These differences were not statistically significant. Conclusions No significant differences were observed between evolocumab and alirocumab. LDL-C levels exhibited a similar trend, characterized by a rapid decline in the acute phase, followed by a slight rebound in the subacute phase.

Background: The significance of risk modification in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) is well recognized; however, the optimal timing for adminstering PCSK9 inhibitors remains unclear. Additionally, the lipid-lowering efficacy of evolocumab and alirocumab has not been fully established. This study evaluated the lipid-lowering effects of these two PCSK9 inhibitors. Methods: Patients diagnosed with ACS, including unstable angina, ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, and non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, who were treated with a PCSK9 inhibitor (evolocumab or alirocumab) during hospitalization for ACS between 2021 and 2023 were retrospectively analyzed. Baseline low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels were assessed, and changes in LDL-C levels during the acute and subacute phases after PCSK9 inhibitor administration were compared between the evolocumab and alirocumab groups. Results: Among 80 patients diagnosed with ACS, 36 received evolocumab, while 44 were treated with alirocumab. The mean baseline LDL-C level was 123 mg/dL in the evolocumab group and 128 mg/dL in the alirocumab group (p=0.456). In the subacute phase, the mean follow-up LDL-C levels were 47.05 mg/dL in the evolocumab group and 49.5 mg/dL in the alirocumab group (p=0.585). The mean percentage reduction in LDL-C levels during the subacute phase was 60.41% in the evolocumab group and 58.51% in the alirocumab group (p=0.431). These differences were not statistically significant. Conclusions No significant differences were observed between evolocumab and alirocumab. LDL-C levels exhibited a similar trend, characterized by a rapid decline in the acute phase, followed by a slight rebound in the subacute phase.

Background: The significance of risk modification in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) is well recognized; however, the optimal timing for adminstering PCSK9 inhibitors remains unclear. Additionally, the lipid-lowering efficacy of evolocumab and alirocumab has not been fully established. This study evaluated the lipid-lowering effects of these two PCSK9 inhibitors. Methods: Patients diagnosed with ACS, including unstable angina, ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, and non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, who were treated with a PCSK9 inhibitor (evolocumab or alirocumab) during hospitalization for ACS between 2021 and 2023 were retrospectively analyzed. Baseline low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels were assessed, and changes in LDL-C levels during the acute and subacute phases after PCSK9 inhibitor administration were compared between the evolocumab and alirocumab groups. Results: Among 80 patients diagnosed with ACS, 36 received evolocumab, while 44 were treated with alirocumab. The mean baseline LDL-C level was 123 mg/dL in the evolocumab group and 128 mg/dL in the alirocumab group (p=0.456). In the subacute phase, the mean follow-up LDL-C levels were 47.05 mg/dL in the evolocumab group and 49.5 mg/dL in the alirocumab group (p=0.585). The mean percentage reduction in LDL-C levels during the subacute phase was 60.41% in the evolocumab group and 58.51% in the alirocumab group (p=0.431). These differences were not statistically significant. Conclusions No significant differences were observed between evolocumab and alirocumab. LDL-C levels exhibited a similar trend, characterized by a rapid decline in the acute phase, followed by a slight rebound in the subacute phase.

Gastric cancer is one of the most common cancers in both Korea and worldwide. Since 2004, the Korean Practice Guidelines for Gastric Cancer have been regularly updated, with the 4th edition published in 2022. The 4th edition was the result of a collaborative work by an interdisciplinary team, including experts in gastric surgery, gastroenterology, endoscopy, medical oncology, abdominal radiology, pathology, nuclear medicine, radiation oncology, and guideline development methodology. The current guideline is the 5th version, an updated version of the 4th edition. In this guideline, 6 key questions (KQs) were updated or proposed after a collaborative review by the working group, and 7 statements were developed, or revised, or discussed based on a systematic review using the MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, and KoreaMed database. Over the past 2 years, there have been significant changes in systemic treatment, leading to major updates and revisions focused on this area.Additionally, minor modifications have been made in other sections, incorporating recent research findings. The level of evidence and grading of recommendations were categorized according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation system. Key factors for recommendation included the level of evidence, benefit, harm, and clinical applicability. The working group reviewed and discussed the recommendations to reach a consensus. The structure of this guideline remains similar to the 2022 version.Earlier sections cover general considerations, such as screening, diagnosis, and staging of endoscopy, pathology, radiology, and nuclear medicine. In the latter sections, statements are provided for each KQ based on clinical evidence, with flowcharts supporting these statements through meta-analysis and references. This multidisciplinary, evidence-based gastric cancer guideline aims to support clinicians in providing optimal care for gastric cancer patients.

Gastric cancer is one of the most common cancers in both Korea and worldwide. Since 2004, the Korean Practice Guidelines for Gastric Cancer have been regularly updated, with the 4th edition published in 2022. The 4th edition was the result of a collaborative work by an interdisciplinary team, including experts in gastric surgery, gastroenterology, endoscopy, medical oncology, abdominal radiology, pathology, nuclear medicine, radiation oncology, and guideline development methodology. The current guideline is the 5th version, an updated version of the 4th edition. In this guideline, 6 key questions (KQs) were updated or proposed after a collaborative review by the working group, and 7 statements were developed, or revised, or discussed based on a systematic review using the MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, and KoreaMed database. Over the past 2 years, there have been significant changes in systemic treatment, leading to major updates and revisions focused on this area.Additionally, minor modifications have been made in other sections, incorporating recent research findings. The level of evidence and grading of recommendations were categorized according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation system. Key factors for recommendation included the level of evidence, benefit, harm, and clinical applicability. The working group reviewed and discussed the recommendations to reach a consensus. The structure of this guideline remains similar to the 2022 version.Earlier sections cover general considerations, such as screening, diagnosis, and staging of endoscopy, pathology, radiology, and nuclear medicine. In the latter sections, statements are provided for each KQ based on clinical evidence, with flowcharts supporting these statements through meta-analysis and references. This multidisciplinary, evidence-based gastric cancer guideline aims to support clinicians in providing optimal care for gastric cancer patients.

Background and Objectives: Outcomes of deferring percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) without invasive physiologic assessment for intermediate coronary lesions is uncertain.We sought to compare long-term outcomes between medical treatment and PCI of intermediate lesions without invasive physiologic assessment. Methods: A total of 899 patients with intermediate coronary lesions between 50% and 70% diameter-stenosis were randomized to the conservative group (n=449) or the aggressive group (n=450). For intermediate lesions, PCI was performed in the aggressive group, but was deferred in the conservative group. The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac events (MACE, a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction [MI], or ischemia-driven any revascularization) at 3 years. Results: The number of treated lesions per patient was 0.8±0.9 in the conservative group and 1.7±0.9 in the aggressive group (p=0.001). At 3 years, the conservative group had a significantly higher incidence of MACE than the aggressive group (13.8% vs. 9.3%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.49; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.00–2.21; p=0.049), mainly driven by revascularization of target intermediate lesion (6.5% vs. 1.1%; HR, 5.69; 95% CI, 2.20–14.73;p<0.001). Between 1 and 3 years after the index procedure, compared to the aggressive group, the conservative group had significantly higher incidence of cardiac death or MI (3.2% vs.0.7%; HR, 4.34; 95% CI, 1.24–15.22; p=0.022) and ischemia-driven any revascularization. Conclusions For intermediate lesions, medical therapy alone, guided only by angiography, was associated with a higher risk of MACE at 3 years compared with performing PCI, mainly due to increased revascularization.

Background: The significance of risk modification in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) is well recognized; however, the optimal timing for adminstering PCSK9 inhibitors remains unclear. Additionally, the lipid-lowering efficacy of evolocumab and alirocumab has not been fully established. This study evaluated the lipid-lowering effects of these two PCSK9 inhibitors. Methods: Patients diagnosed with ACS, including unstable angina, ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, and non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, who were treated with a PCSK9 inhibitor (evolocumab or alirocumab) during hospitalization for ACS between 2021 and 2023 were retrospectively analyzed. Baseline low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels were assessed, and changes in LDL-C levels during the acute and subacute phases after PCSK9 inhibitor administration were compared between the evolocumab and alirocumab groups. Results: Among 80 patients diagnosed with ACS, 36 received evolocumab, while 44 were treated with alirocumab. The mean baseline LDL-C level was 123 mg/dL in the evolocumab group and 128 mg/dL in the alirocumab group (p=0.456). In the subacute phase, the mean follow-up LDL-C levels were 47.05 mg/dL in the evolocumab group and 49.5 mg/dL in the alirocumab group (p=0.585). The mean percentage reduction in LDL-C levels during the subacute phase was 60.41% in the evolocumab group and 58.51% in the alirocumab group (p=0.431). These differences were not statistically significant. Conclusions No significant differences were observed between evolocumab and alirocumab. LDL-C levels exhibited a similar trend, characterized by a rapid decline in the acute phase, followed by a slight rebound in the subacute phase.

Gastric cancer is one of the most common cancers in both Korea and worldwide. Since 2004, the Korean Practice Guidelines for Gastric Cancer have been regularly updated, with the 4th edition published in 2022. The 4th edition was the result of a collaborative work by an interdisciplinary team, including experts in gastric surgery, gastroenterology, endoscopy, medical oncology, abdominal radiology, pathology, nuclear medicine, radiation oncology, and guideline development methodology. The current guideline is the 5th version, an updated version of the 4th edition. In this guideline, 6 key questions (KQs) were updated or proposed after a collaborative review by the working group, and 7 statements were developed, or revised, or discussed based on a systematic review using the MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, and KoreaMed database. Over the past 2 years, there have been significant changes in systemic treatment, leading to major updates and revisions focused on this area.Additionally, minor modifications have been made in other sections, incorporating recent research findings. The level of evidence and grading of recommendations were categorized according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation system. Key factors for recommendation included the level of evidence, benefit, harm, and clinical applicability. The working group reviewed and discussed the recommendations to reach a consensus. The structure of this guideline remains similar to the 2022 version.Earlier sections cover general considerations, such as screening, diagnosis, and staging of endoscopy, pathology, radiology, and nuclear medicine. In the latter sections, statements are provided for each KQ based on clinical evidence, with flowcharts supporting these statements through meta-analysis and references. This multidisciplinary, evidence-based gastric cancer guideline aims to support clinicians in providing optimal care for gastric cancer patients.